To some extent, this fact [det bristande intresset för
regeringens eventuella delaktighet i brottet] reflects a matter of
principle — a concern that devoting attention to possible conspiracies
is diversionary. Some of the reasons for this wariness are valid. One
concern is that a focus on exposing conspiratorial crimes of present
office-holders may reflect the naive asssumption that if only we can
replace those individuals with better ones, things will be fine.
Underlying that worry is the concern that a focus on conspirators can
divert attention from the more important issue of the structural
problems in the national and global order that need to be overcome. But
although those dangers must be guarded against, we should also avoid a
too strong dichotomy between structural and conspiratorial analysis.
For one thing, although structural analysis is essential for any deep
understanding of social processes, structures as such, being
abstractions, do not enact themselves. They are influential only
insofar as they are embodied in agents — both individual and
institutional — who act in terms of them. These agents, furthermore,
are not fully determined by the dominant values of their societies.
They have degrees of freedom, which they can use to act in ways that
are more or less wise, more or less just, and more or less legal. When
political leaders enact policies that are egregiously unjust,
dangerous, and even illegal, it is important to replace them with
leaders who are at least somewhat better. Finally, and most important,
the exposure of a conspiracy may, rather than diverting attention from
a society's problematic structures, turn attention to them. For
example, if it became evident that our national political leaders
caused or at least allowed the attacks of 9/11 and that they did so
partly because they had deeply embodied certain values pervasive of our
society, we might finally decide that a society-wide reorientation is
in order.